I misunderstood you somehow. You are correct - the math is easier with
your system. Oliver?

>OK, I'm open to suggestions here. Since players tend to be rational people,
>at least by their own definition of rationality, they are going to spend
>the majority of their time learning to do the most damage that they can with
>the least cost in training time. This always is some heavy duty weapon.
>Why bother learning how to kick and grapple, when these cause little damage
>and you always prefer to hit with your primary weapon? What actions of the
>GM can encourage players to act contrary to their interests (inflicting as
>much real damage as possible on a deadly opponent) without seeming arbitrary?

Well, because (for instance) you can't carry heavy weapons openly in
most major cities? Because weapons break/drop/can be snatched by
whips? Because kicking someone in the middle of a fight with maces can be a
surprise maneuver, giving +30%? (Which is why it's so effective in the _Three
Musketeers_.) Because if you parry a Grapple attack with a weapon,
the other person is now holding onto your weapon and can pull it away
(especially useful on blunt-edged weapons like quarterstaves, but
quite effective on shields)? Should I go on?

>I agree that complexity is a problem, but that is what optional rules are
>for. For many of my critisism, the response has been that the GM and players
>should fix the inadequacies of the rules through role-play. That does not seem
>very satisfactory to me. The game system defines the physical reality of the
>world. Characters' action will conform to the reality created by the game
>system. That is what the game system is supposed to do: create the game
>reality.

Granted. I suspect this particular optional would belong in a magazine
article published after RQ4, titled something like "realistic armor".
I haven't seen anyone else among RQ4 playtesters comment about this
particular problem, which means that the priority of including special
arm and leg armor rules in the main game is probably low.